Recent comments

  • Plant Immigration Rights Supporter's picture
    Plant Immigrati... 8 years 13 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    The article states "for any course in the public schools". By "public schools" they mean government-run schools. If you do not want to be bound by this law do not send your children to government-run schools. They will get a better education if you don't send them there anyway.
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 8 years 13 weeks ago
    Let Us Awake Now
    Page B.R. Merrick
    "Freedom comes from within." This powerful insight is applied to the tragic and increasing number of suicides among members of the military. Think a death camp is an extreme example? Contemplate the serenity of John Galt, even while he was being tortured by his oppressors. Ayn Rand understood this! What a powerful article!! I highly recommend it!
  • GreenClover's picture
    GreenClover 8 years 13 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Politicians (government in general) will always be more of a threat to the people. The difference between a politician @ a statesman is that a politician looks only to the next election while a statesman looks to the next generation. America has few statesmen.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 14 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    In the Constitution of your government* the Fourteenth Amendment states that all persons which are “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”. I believe that this is was not the case originally, but the States governments later became subjects of the Federal government. Anyone believing that the States are sovereign better go study the word sovereign and then take a long hard look at the so-called Supremacy Clause (Article VI.2) of their government's* Constitution. Footnote: * I say “your government” and “their government's” only because, as an Individual Secessionist I wish to make it manifest that it is no longer my government.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 14 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    I'd be very cautious about the slant therealnews.com might put on their 'news', since it apparently "receives funding from grants and funds". http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ford_Foundation/Projects_supp...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 14 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    From that same article, "Consistent with this reasoning, out of more than 1,500 distinct cultures throughout the world documented in The Encyclopedia of World Cultures, only 19 contain any reference to atheism. Not only do these 19 cultures exist far outside of our ancestral home in the African savanna, but all 19 of them without an exception are former Communist societies. There are no non-former-Communist cultures described in The Encyclopedia as containing any significant segment of atheists." I have found, in my short 60+ years that the more government controlled education an individual has received, the more likely it is that he will believe that he is "more intelligent" and the more likely it is that he will be a proponent of "Communism" and "Atheism". "The collectivists are eternal enemies of all religions, because they recognize that if people have a religious faith they have a loyalty to something other than the STATE, and collectivists do not like that, the STATE must be all. The state must be religion, the people must literally worship the state as their salvation, and some of the earlier writers, on this topic, have even said so in plain English, that collectivism must become the new religion of man." ~ G. Edward Griffin
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 14 weeks ago Page tzo
    Great article, Tom. Thought you might like to know, though, that the 'priesthood' has perverted the Divine Right of Kings doctrine, like they have so many other things. The Divine Right of Kings pertains to all men, we are all born Sovereigns-Without-Subjects. Here is are three verses from the King James Bible that are prima facie evidence of this fact. 1Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood... Peter is not talking to some select little group of wannabe rulers, he is speaking to everyone who has "come out from among them", i.e. seceded from the governments of men, and returned to God's Kingdom, which is, in my opinion, the Natural Kingdom. Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and [even] his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Revelation 5:10 And hast made us, unto our God, kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. Again, John the Revelator is not talking to some small elite, he is speaking to those who have "overcometh". Colossians 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. What "handwriting of ordinances that was against us"? When we "withdraw from membership" in the group, i.e. state citizenry, we are "civilly dead" and therefore no longer "subject to ordinances...after the commandments and doctrines of men", so don't "touch" them, "taste" them or "handle them", they are not for you and you will perish with the using. Colossians 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ [the anointed] from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
  • mkghandi's picture
    mkghandi 8 years 14 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Buchanan apparently doesn't believe that all the events he referred to--The underwear bomber and the Times Square bomber --are black ops designed to inure the American public to random acts of terror committed by anonymous terrorists and not properly investigated by authorities. What is the purpose of these 'spectacles'. To get us ready for the next false flag to spark off another war--against Iran. There are no wars between nations. There are only 'government ops' that kill and destroy to inflame hatreds against their enemies. The wars are all for control. The government versus the people. Big Corporations versus the people. It is the elite versus everybody else, and the elite control the money and the media. Buchanan is blind to this. But it's understandable. He's a politician. He's right. The war is coming home. But it isn't being brought home by foreigners. The enemy are the people who are 'authorities', not terrorists. MKG
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 14 weeks ago
    iTotalitarian
    Web link Anthony Gregory
    “In a republic like the U.S. (not a democracy as the president said), government is instituted by the people and for the people.” And for what purpose is “government instituted by the people”? Well, according to its Cornerstone Document, the so-called Declaration of Independence, “to secure these [unalienable] rights” and “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”. There is one other lawful remedy, however, that is not mentioned in that declaration of secession, the natural right of the individual to secede, i.e. “withdraw from membership” in the political community. This should not be confused with expatriation, as it ofttimes is, which means to withdraw from the country of one's nativity.
  • Guest's picture
    annaP (not verified) 8 years 14 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Well I truly have to question if perhaps the terrorists are gaining ground when we now run away from bottled water. Today there was a Times Square suspicious package placed outside the Marriott Marquis. The bundle was actually a cooler that had inside of it some bottled water. I comprehend the paranoia considering this really is just days after Faisal Shahzad tried to set off a automobile bomb in the very same block, but this really is New York. They are certain to have things ditched every day there, are we likely to run from anything left by someone?
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 8 years 14 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Granted, the Southern States were in no degree anarchist but they were the last, I think, to try to secede; were they entertaining a "paranoid fantasy" when anticipating that the Feds might try to prevent them? Has secession ever worked? Even at the individual level, try seceding from any level of government. If they see you (and yes, it may be possible to live under their radar) they will kill you rather than allow it. Again, their appetite for power is insatiable, and they have a lot more "battle rifles" than we do.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 14 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Hi Paul, I stopped when I read this, "Of course, secession will be necessary. We can't have the feds telling us what to do. Bad enough that after secession, the states will still want to do the same thing". Most Americans, when they think of secession, think only of the Southern states seceding from the Union, and as a consequence think that secession applies to States only, but in fact, secession is, and has always been, an individual choice. Black's legal definition of secession is simply this, “The act of withdrawing from membership in a group”. [Black's 1991 Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (page 1351)] This is good news for any man (or woman) who claims to be an individualist, because it means that he (or she) doesn't have to act hypocritical by forcing, or trying to force, other individuals into seceding with him (or her).
  • helio's picture
    helio 8 years 14 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I agree, we must concentrate our numbers. If there were anywhere better to go on this planet I would make it my life's goal to get there. Or even another planet if that were in the realm of the possible. Imagine, Mars as a stateless planet! More than likely though, I'll be stuck here, in debt, without much preparation when the empire collapses.
  • buzaman's picture
    buzaman 8 years 14 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    No tape: "It's obvious that his injuries came from resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. We have corroborating accounts by other officers and additional charges will be filed." Same incident with a video: "We will have an internal review by other police officers and we will place the offending officer on paid leave." Rolls reversed: "The perpetrator will be sentenced to 5-10 years for assaulting a police officer." or "The perpetrator was gunned down by another officer as he viciously assaulted a police officer by stomping on his head."
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 8 years 14 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Statists have their paranoid fantasies; there is no reason anarchists shouldn't have them too, I guess. The folks in Anarchyville would simply haul out their battle rifles and kill the invaders. Which is why no invasion would happen. There are many examples in the past where neighboring cities had very diverse outlooks, yet did not invade each other. The last place I lived, Hillsboro, Oregon, used to be known as "Sin City" to the devout Christians in Newberg, just over the hill. No invasions took place - even though the men of Newberg probably sneaked over to Sin City now and then for entertainment.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 8 years 14 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Given that statists have by their nature an unquenchable appetite for power, how would one prevent Statist City thugs invading and subduing Anarchyville?
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 8 years 14 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    Suverans, Either you are a delicious satirist, or you have not thought things through very well. Once an organization dedicated to violence is ensconced-no matter how it is paid for-you can rest assured that there will be a collectivist army to deal with....minus the invasion. It's the nature of the beast, always has been. That said, it is extraordinarily difficult for a nation(a collectivist notion by the way), to actually effectively conduct an invasion, and repelling one requires less organization and resources than you might think. It took Europeans 300 years to fully disperse the technologically inferior nomadic tribes of N. America, and then only with the un-looked for aid of plagues. The Romans never did conquer the nomadic tribes of Germany and Britian, in fact, the opposite occurred. The truth is, most of the gaudy, expensive, war weapons are designed to awe and terrify(and bleed of funds) the populace and are of little actual defense value. Saddam's armed forces were utterly eliminated in the first weeks-if not hours-of the Iraq war.....and the Taliban never really had one....yet victory certainly can't be claimed. No, all that is needed to stymie an invasion force, as has been shown throughout the past century, and currently in Iraq and Afghanistan, and throughout history, is people willing to fight with whatever weapons they can procure. Though it does seem to help if, in the immortal words of Bert Gummer, "a few household chemicals in the proper proportions" are available.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 14 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    How about this t-shirt, jd? http://www.realityzone.com/exchegu.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 14 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    PROPER ROLE OF THE STATE<?strong> I believe that the proper role of the state is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and that always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If the state is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it also will be powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of the state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, nothing more. That state is best which governs least. ~ G. Edward Griffin Excerpted from Creed of Freedom http://freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=creed
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 15 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Spartacus. So, in the very likely event that the continent upon which you currently find yourself was attacked by the army of a collectivist nation, intent on plundering all of its natural resources, (including 'human resources'), your rational solution to a successful defense of it would be_______________________?
  • Spartacus's picture
    Spartacus 8 years 15 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    "National" defense makes about as much sense as "national" cell phone service, "national" health care, "national" education, or "national" government.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 8 years 15 weeks ago
    Quake
    Page Jim Davies
    To Madtekwriter: yes, I'll gladly admit that "my" image of god is that he is "omni-interfering" - except that it's not really my image at all. This being a nominally and predominantly Christian country, I'm using the image of god conveyed in the Judeo-Christian religion, ie the Bible. Presumably, I don't have to show you, do I, that that image is one of an omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent entity? That would be too easy. But it also portrays him as omni-interfering, though without using that particular phrase. Consider for example Matthew 10:29, 30 (KJV):- "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered." I suggest that a god who takes note of every falling sparrow and counts every hair on every head is pretty closely interested in what's going on. Your image of god appears to be that he set things up rather like spinning a top, and then withdrew to see how things turned out. Certainly, you're entitled to believe whatever you want; there is no shortage of myths about what god is like. But that "hands off" idea is not Christian, and does not absolve god in any degree from responsibility for the result of what he allegedly established. If you release the parking brake of a car on a hill and it careens down it and kills pedestrians, the fault is yours.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 15 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    You're welcome and notice too that according to the strict legal wording of their "supremacy clause" there is a restriction on the laws, i.e. they are supposed to be made "in pursuance" of the Constitution, but the "treaties made or which shall be made" have not that same restriction, inferred or otherwise. It is important to note that only about five percent of the international agreement entered into by the US Government requires Senate advice and consent (Art. II, Sec. 2). “April 12, 1952 -- John Foster Dulles, later to become Secretary of State, says in a speech to the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky that ‘treaty laws can override the Constitution.’ He says treaties can take power away from Congress and give them to the President. They can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.” [Emphasis added] July 18, 1993 -- CFR member and Trilateralist Henry Kissinger writes in the Los Angeles Times concerning NAFTA: "What Congress will have before it, is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system...a first step toward a new world order."
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 8 years 15 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    I see no real difference in Heinrich Himmler and Che Guevara. What kind of sick person would wear a Himmler t-shirt? Why would anyone want to wear a Che t-shirt?
  • dobropet's picture
    dobropet 8 years 15 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Appreciated.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 15 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Article 6.2 This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added]
  • dobropet's picture
    dobropet 8 years 15 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Is it not the states right to decide what is necessary for it to enforce within it's own boundaries? http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/05/03/immigration-foreign-affai... And, if not, which I assume resides ultimately with the people of Arizona, doesn't the majority of it's citizens support the measure?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 15 weeks ago
    Immigration and Crime
    Web link Cheryl Cline
    "The practical difficulty with our government has been, that most of those who have administered it, have taken it for granted that the Constitution, as it is written, was a thing of no importance; that it neither said what it meant, nor meant what it said; that it was gotten up by swindlers, (as many of its authors doubtless were,) who said a great many good things, which they did not mean, and meant a great many bad things, which they dared not say; that these men, under the false pretence of a government resting on the consent of the whole people, designed to entrap them into a government of a part; who should be powerful and fraudulent enough to cheat the weaker portion out of all the good things that were said, but not meant, and subject them to all the bad things that were meant, but not said. And most of those who have administered the government, have assumed that all these swindling intentions were to be carried into effect, in the place of the written Constitution." ~ Lysander Spooner, No Treason<?em> (1867) Was Lysander correct in that statement? Apparently so. "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" ~ Attributed to President George W. Bush (c.2005) I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper." ~ Doug Thompson, Capitol Hill Blue (12-9-5)
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 8 years 15 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    "Defense" from whom, exactly? Alex's article presupposes "a society without government" but also assumes that it would need a "defense system responsible for that area’s protection." Why? A reasonable answer might be "to prevent invasion by neighboring governments." However, that assumes that neighboring societies continue to have governments, eager as ever to increase their power by raiding and looting nearby targets. Why, again, assume such a thing? If society A rid itself of its government, would neighboring societies C and M be unaffected? - hardly. Yet that seems to be the unspoken assumption in the article. I suggest it be closely examined. There's another aspect to this, perhaps deeper yet. If Society A shook off its governmental chains, how did it do so? - answer, by some extraordinarily powerful method, which we need not consider here - though I assume it would be a non-violent method, because of Tandy's paradox that if resistance to government is powerful enough to wage a successful violent revolution, there would be no need to wage it. Now, despite my profound doubts based on the preceding paragraph, suppose Government C does mount an invasion and re-enslave the residents of Society A, or part of it. What's to stop those residents using that same method to shake it off again in short order? There might in a free society be a small residue of violent individuals who persist in trying to live by theft instead of voluntary exchange, hence most people will keep weapons handy to defend themselves and their families. Possibly "protection companies" will offer their services for a fee, and prosper here and there, as need may exist. But armies, navies and air forces will go in to the same historical trash can as government itself.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 15 weeks ago
    Immigration and Crime
    Web link Cheryl Cline
    The Constitution is SUPPOSED TO BE the supreme law of the country. ~ DennisLeeWilson "...the adoption of the Constitution was the merest farce and imposture, binding upon nobody." ~ Lysander Spooner http://lysanderspooner.org/node/63 Quod prius est verius est; et quod prius est tempore potius est jure. What is first is truest; and what comes first in time, is best in law. Co. Litt. 347. ~ Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary [Emphasis added] The law of nature [the natural law of man] is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9 [The natural] law [of man] is the paramount law, and the same law, over all the world, at all times, and for all peoples; and will be the same paramount and only law, at all times, and for all peoples, so long as man shall live upon the earth. ~ Natural Law; or the Science of Justice by Lysander Spooner (1882)
  • Wilton D. Alston's picture
    Wilton D. Alston 8 years 15 weeks ago Page Wilton D. Alston
    This is an essay that was actually co-authored by me and Stefan Molyneux. For reasons having to do with the hosting platform, it does not (and cannot, apparently) show Stef as a co-author. Simply because I'm proud of the work that Stef and I did together, I will spell that fact out here in the comments.
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 8 years 15 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    The article has many very interesting points. I disagree with the statement that “Black markets are anathema to a free society”. Black markets—which are, in fact, UNREGULATED markets—are the ESSENCE of a free society and they are the ONLY market that keeps people from starving in a heavily regulated society! Complete removal of the regulations would also eliminate the “Murder, theft, smuggling, and even slavery” which are ALL part and parcel of REGULATED markets. I also note with interest—especially in the comments—the many calls for “respect the law” and “enforce the law” and “make the Feds do their job”. However, because ALL these Federal “laws”, rules, restrictions and regulations are themselves ILLEGAL, the solution is NOT reform but immediate REPEAL! THAT would be true “enforcement of the law” and true “respect for the law”! The Constitution is SUPPOSED TO BE the supreme law of the country. As I stated in my 2007 article by the same name: "Immigration control is UN-Constitutional!" REALLY! It is TRUE! The US Constitution does NOT AUTHORIZE immigration control! Check it out at http://tinyurl.com/yeyd7kq
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 8 years 15 weeks ago
    Immigration and Crime
    Web link Cheryl Cline
    I note with interest—especially in the comments—the many calls for “respect the law” and “enforce the law” and “make the Feds do their job”. However, because ALL these Federal “laws”, rules, restrictions and regulations are themselves ILLEGAL, the solution is NOT reform but immediate REPEAL! THAT would be true “enforcement of the law” and true “respect for the law”! The Constitution is SUPPOSED TO BE the supreme law of the country. As I stated in my 2007 article by the same name: “Immigration control is UN-Constitutional!” REALLY! It is TRUE! The US Constitution does NOT AUTHORIZE immigration control! Check it out at http://tinyurl.com/yeyd7kq
  • Guest's picture
    Diogenes5 (not verified) 8 years 15 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    I felt this article to be half-baked. In my mind, there is no difference between a private army or a Government run army, aside from how the money is raised. Once an army is up and running it can simply take whatever it wants, from anyone, and descend into piracy. They might set up checkpoints, shake people down in their homes, or cut extortion 'protection' deals with businesses and institutions. Private armies are no more trustworthy or accountable simply because they, at the time, require contributions to keep things running. The problem, as I see it, is that regardless of something's intentions, it's the enabling power granted by violence and brute force -- threat of harm and death by a group capable of inflicting it -- that is the problem. Cutting to the point, what I see is negative human nature (widely amplified in groups, who collectively don't have to take total individual accountability for their actions) to dominate provided the ability and power to do so. For example, corporations... they aren't ever content with their power, they don't sit around having amassed great power and not apply it to anything destructive. Power is almost always exercised, you can and SHOULD expect for that to happen. What is there to stop any influential renegade type from influencing the command of this private army, molding it into some kind of Neo-Soviet ideology through increments and 'redistributing the wealth of the community for the greater good'? What would challenge their power as an organized force? A standing army... I think that has been tried before... I am in favor of a citizen's milita, with the kind of social pressure discussed in this article but far less coercive. The whole "You can't fly on our airline because you refused to pay societal protection money (taxes)" is VERY mafia-esk and really changes nothing. You could buck the 'tax law' now and have the same effect... you wouldn't be able to show your face anywhere, have a credit card, etc because the IRS would be watching. That's how the current Government operates things; "You don't agree with out politics, you're a potential terrorist and can no longer get past TSA." I would rather see voluntary positive incentives toward certain behavior put forth by the people receiving the benefit out of gratitude... such as 'You have joined the militia, to show our thanks in our ability to continue doing business without threat of outside invasion, here is some beer and a pizza.' Since being apart of the militia doesn't come with a salary there is no need to tax, it's volunteer work. Now if there was an invasion on the East Coast that required more men than they had in the militia, I could see the East Coast citizens hiring a temporary army to supplement their militia forces. What's money mean if your entire city is going to be destroyed and you along with it? Hopefully nothing. Nothing is perfect though, mine included, so I give thanks for the article.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 15 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    According to the American declaration of independence, the only lawful purpose of a de jure government is to secure the unalienable rights of its individual members, because the moment it steps beyond this solitary rightful duty it must necessarily become an aggressor. Because of this G. Edward Griffin makes the valid point (IMO) that this organization should be called a protectorate rather than a government. This protectorate, I currently believe, must be a well-armed militia, i.e. "...the able bodied men [excluding genuine "pacifists", i.e. those who truly would not lift a finger to physically defend themselves or their loved ones if attacked] organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations." I believe that this "law" would be in conformity with the natural law[1] of man. Frederic Bastiat may have said it best, I believe. "What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right - from the Creator[2] - to defend his person [body and soul] his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two... If every man has the right to defend - even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right - its reason for existing, its lawfulness - is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups... If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect individuals, liberties, and properties, to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the simplest, easiest to accept, economical, limited, non-oppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable - whatever its political form might be." I suspect that this concept could be easily tested by asking each individual a question, perhaps something like this, "If you were attacked by a superior force would you want someone to aid you in your defense?" If you answer yes, then naturally you could be expected to do the same for your neighbors, it would seem to me. [1] The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. - Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9 [2] For anyone not believing in a "first cause", please feel free ignore this as ignoring it will not detract from its intrinsic value.
  • Guest's picture
    KingofthePaupers (not verified) 8 years 15 weeks ago
    Alternative Currency
    Page Monica Grand Pre
    Monica Grand Pre: "It is improbable that any two systems would be identical or interchangeable." Jct: Beautiful article though it is quite probable that all community currency systems are basically identical and interchangeable. In 1999, under the Time Standard of Money, I paid for 39/40 nights in Europe with a timebank IOU for a night back in Canada worth 5 Hours which I recorded on my public do-it-yourself timebank account: http://johnturmel.com/unilets.com No matter how you cut it, you can always tell me how many units of your currency you pay to the Hour so you can trade internationally in Hours while you can trade nationally in LETS Greencredits. It's only a matter of time until they merge into one big world-wide time-trading UNILETS timebank.
  • Guest's picture
    PDXcurrency (not verified) 8 years 15 weeks ago
    Alternative Currency
    Page Monica Grand Pre
    It is wild to read this article from October 08, 2003. Monica has some real vision of how things work and writing about it 7 years ago before the sub-prime mess and the 'almost' crash of the economy. Community currency and local currency have begun to really take off in the US and Europe. TimeBanks are growing rapidly, hour exchanges and barter exchanges are becoming very common in small towns and big ones. I think there needs to be a more careful look at why some programs succeed like the Berkshares or Ithaca Hours and why many others fail after the initial excitement fades. Bishop http://www.twitter.com/pdxcurrency
  • JoshuaPettigrew's picture
    JoshuaPettigrew 8 years 15 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Notice the statist solution given: increase gov't spending and power.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 16 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    Best reply goes to Mike. Here's a flowchart... Haven't won a war in 60 years? >>>>>>>> Don't bother with illegal invasions. - Mike, NY, NY, 29/4/2010 01:28 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1269463/Afghanistan-Po...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 16 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Hi Emmet, Appreciate your reply, however, I'm not convinced that it is "out of fear of [the government]". The following story will make my point for me, I believe. THE DEVELOPMENT OF GROUP ATTITUDE Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string, and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result, all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it. Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted. Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment…with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, and then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs, or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know, that's the way it's always been done around here. And that, my dear friends, is how group attitude develops.
  • Emmett Harris's picture
    Emmett Harris 8 years 16 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Black's definition would be truer if included some minor additions: "Citizens" are members of a political community who...have... (grudgingly) submitted themselves to the dominion of a government (out of fear of the same) for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual...rights.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 16 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    The “Town” has had “authority granted” by whom? "Citizens" are members of a political community who...have...submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual...rights. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 244 By those who submit to it.
  • livemike's picture
    livemike 8 years 16 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    I do understand that slide, you can't win.
  • Bill Ross's picture
    Bill Ross 8 years 16 weeks ago
    Power Makes You Stupid
    Web link Cheryl Cline
    An attribute of criminal power (ability to coerce) is unaccountability for your actions. Power insulates itself from consequences using the threat of our guns, pointed at us, to prevent our retaliation for their crimes. It is not power that makes you stupid. It is irresponsibility and therefore lack of the feedback required to learn, adapt and therefore survive. Darwin warned us: Survival EQUALS adaptation to environment EQUALS ability to choose correctly EQUALS freedom: http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/36 Power, because of lack of feedback (facing consequences of THEIR actions) is doomed to non-survival, due to unfitness and inability to learn or adapt to reality. THINK about it: http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/33 The only valid question is: Will we allow them take us and civilization with them?
  • winston smith's picture
    winston smith 8 years 16 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    thank you, buzaman!!!
  • buzaman's picture
    buzaman 8 years 16 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    I highly suggest that those who haven't see it yet, to view Bob Higg's 3 hour interview on CSPAN Book TV, it's a great primer for anyone new to the ideas of liberty.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 16 weeks ago Quotation strike
    A Treatise on Natural Law, Natural Justice, Natural Rights, Natural Liberty, and Natural Society; Showing That All Legislation Whatsoever is an Absurdity, an Usurpation, and a Crime (1882) The science of mine and thine – the science of justice – is the science of all human rights; of all a man’s rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person. It is the science of peace; and the only science of peace; since it is the science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace, or ought to live in peace, with each other. ~ http://praxeology.net/LS-NL-1.htm#ch.1
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 16 weeks ago Page tzo
    Inalienable Rights are Natural Rights These Natural Rights are referred to as “unalienable rights” in The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America of July 4, 1776. Unalienable.Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523 ABRIDGE', v.t. 3. To deprive; to cut off from; followed by of; as to abridge one of his rights, or enjoyments. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative. - Wikipedia [Emphasis added] Each of us has a natural right [a “just claim”] - from the Creator - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. – http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 16 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    If you are correct in this, Jim, then neither of them read Psalms 2:2 (KJV) The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD [Jehovah], and against his anointed... However, you might not be correct in this assessment, because Paul is also attributed to 'saying' this about Jesus, at Colossians 2:15 (LITV), "having stripped the rulers and the authorities, He made a show of them in public, triumphing over them in it." Which is the reason, of course, is why the first charge brought against him was teaching people not to pay tribute (taxes) to the Caesar. Luke 23:2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute [G5411] to Caesar... G5411 ...a load (as borne), that is, (figuratively) a tax (properly an individual assessment on persons or property...) ~ Strong's Greek Dictionary
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 16 weeks ago Page Bill Butler
    I am under the opinion that the judiciary is administering the bankruptcy of the U.S., (declared by Roosevelt in 1933), and that the judges are not allowed to consider any case law prior to 1938. Is that correct? If that is correct, and if your government is a "government of, for and by the people ("the people" being its consenting members)", are not "the people (i.e. the consenting members)" directly responsible for paying off this bankruptcy according to the agreed upon terms, thus creating a whole new set of rules?